Inter-rater agreement of scores to assess quality of care in public sector primary health care facilities – A pattern of performance
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21456827 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ronel Steinhöbel (0000-0002-1445-0200, University of Pretoria), Liz Wolvaardt (0000-0002-3157-8863, University of Pretoria, corresponding author), Elizabeth M Webb (0000-0002-9627-3550, University of Pretoria) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 89 |
| Pages | 102004 |
| Publication date | 2021-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Evaluation and Program Planning (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0149-7189 • E-ISSN: 1873-7870 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.102004 |
| PMID | 34583285 |
| OpenAlex | W3199023418 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 9 |
PURPOSE: To determine if the scores obtained from the Ideal Clinic Assessment Tool (ICAT) used to assess the quality of care in public Primary Health Care facilities in South Africa showed inter-rater agreement between self-assessments, district peer reviews and cross-district peer reviews. The ICAT scores obtained in the three types of reviews were paired as follows: self-assessments/district peer reviews, self-assessment/cross-district peer reviews and district/cross-district peer reviews. The global scores and averages of the Vital elements for the three paired reviews for 587 facilities across the country were compared using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman plots showed no inter-rater agreement between the global scores and averages of the Vital elements for the facilities in any of the paired reviews (n = 1 761 reviews). Similarly, there was no inter-rater agreement between the global scores of the three paired reviews in any of the nine provinces in the country. CONCLUSION: There is still a need to continue to conduct both district and cross-district reviews despite the substantial cost of doing so. Further studies are required to determine what factors contributed to the disagreement in scores between the different types of reviews despite the preparatory training of reviewers
Environmental health · Family medicine · Inter-rater reliability · Primary care · Public health · Quality (philosophy) · Rating scale · School district · Healthcare Quality and Management · Medicine · Nursing · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|